Look carefully. That tiny black dot is Mercury in transit across the sun. NASA
“Laws become fragile under the influence of dictators.” ― Wayne Gerard Trotman
My daughter who is a pediatric critical care nurse and I had a discussion this past weekend on what constitutes egalitarianism. I told her we were using the wrong words. We should be discussing giftedness. Take me. I cannot carry a tune or a beat. In an egalitarian world, I should be equally sought out to sing a solo or getting the congregation to clap along with the hot new song.
The Founders appear to trade the importance of giftedness for the more important (in their theological world) gender identity. I truly believe that the church has so focused on gender that it has successfully isolated women from positions of leadership. This mean that the church is rarely listening to well over 50 % of their congregations. Their isolation of women may have led to dire consequences in the church. If one does not hear over 50%+ of their congregation, they are likely overlooking 50+% of gifted input. Could this have led to the sex abuse of children and domestic violence of women being overlooked by male leadership which did not have the benefit of the input of over 50%+ of their membership?
Law and Grace
I have developed a deeper awareness of law and grace since joining the Lutheran church. There are two parts to the law. The first involves following the law because it is good. Secondly, we are also condemned by the Law since we cannot perfectly follow that which is good.
However, although we are no longer condemned by the Law, the Law still continues to teach us. For example, adultery is wrong and harmful to a marriage. That hasn’t changed. Jesus also took the law which spoke against adultery and carried it deeper and wider. He told us that our inner thoughts are as bad as committing the act of adultery itself.
So, without grace we were (and are) condemned on top of condemned. With grace, we are fully forgiven. In Jesus we are simultaneously sinners as well as those justified. Jesus has fulfilled the Law and has offered us forgiveness in Him.
The following is a post written by Wade Burleson on the documentary released by The Founders.
I spent two hours watching the new documentary By What Standard? published by Founders Ministries.
Before I critique a couple of unfortunate statements in this film, I wish to express my prayer for Tom Ascol, leader of Founders Ministries, for a full recovery from his recent medical episode.
I believe, like those who lead the Founders Ministries, that Scripture is God’s infallible, revealed word to mankind. I believe, like they, that Scripture is the sole guide of faith and practice for followers of Jesus Christ.
However, I have a fundamental disagreement with Tom Ascol and others in the Founders Ministries. They hold to a Reformed Presbyterian view of covenant theology which teaches that God established a Covenant of Works in the Garden of Eden with the first Adam, and then entered into a Covenant of Grace with the last Adam (Jesus Christ).
Without getting into the technicalities of Reformed Covenant theology, those who hold to it believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are as binding on followers of Jesus in terms of “faith and practice” as they are to the Jews of ancient days and to orthodox Jews today.
But followers of Jesus have a New Lawgiver, and His name isn’t Moses.
While Peter was speaking to the other disciples (about Moses and Elijah), a cloud enveloped them, and they were afraid to enter the cloud. And a voice from the cloud came, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to Him.” Luke 9:35.
The authors of the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message understood the clear and present distinction between the Law of the Old Covenant and the Law of Christ.
“The sole authority for faith and practice among Baptists is Jesus Christ whose will is revealed in the Holy Scriptures…the criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” (Introduction and Section I: The Scriptures, 1963 BFM)
The above two statements were strangely and sadly removed from the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.
There is a clear distinction and separation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. There is a fundamental difference between the faith and practice of a Jew in ancient Israel (Old Testament days) and the faith and practice of a follower of Jesus since the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ who fulfilled the Law and then abrogated it.
All the promises of God made to His people in the Old Covenant were conditional upon the obedience of the Jews, but all the promises of God made to His people in the New Covenant are “YES in Christ, and Amen (it is so!)” because Christ is the fulfillment of the Law (II Corinthians 1:20).
In Christ, everything changes.
Whereas only male priests served in the Old Testament Temple, in the church, both males and females ARE the Temple of the Living God (I Corinthians 3:16).
Christ builds His church (us), and He gifts His people (us) with specific gifts, never using “gender” as a prerequisite for His gifting. In the New Testament, the gifting of service (deacon), teaching (teacher), pastoring (pastor), elder (wisdom), evangelizing (evangelist), or any other Christ-bestowed gift is never restricted to only those with male genitalia, or to only those who are rich, or to only those of a certain ethnicity.
“For there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).
We are one body, gifted as Christ the Authority pleases.
But the Founders flounder over spiritual authority.Like good Orthodox Jews who believe in the Hebrew Scriptures, those books that we Christians call The Old Testament, but Jews call The Tanakh, Tom Ascol and the Founders seemingly join with Orthodox Jews and pray at least two of the three Jewish blessings for themselves every morning:
“Blessed are you O God, King of the Universe, Who has not made me a goy [Gentile], a slave, and a woman.”
Jesus ended that Old Covenant with the Jews and made all things new – radically new.
Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me” (Matthew 28:18).
There is only one Teacher with authority in the church: Jesus Christ. Listen to Him.
But Tom Ascol and the Founders believe that men possess spiritual authority over women and children. They believe that male pastors have spiritual authority in the church and that they are called to spiritually rule over people. This “ruling over” other people is fulfilled by declaring God’s will to others, for they alone (male pastors) have this so-called spiritual authority. Thus, according to these authority addicts, any Christian woman who is teaching, preaching, shepherding, evangelizing, (e.g. fulfilling the call of God by exercising her gifts) is breaking God’s Rules in God’s World (the subtitle of the film), for only men are to have spiritual authority over others.
In summary, Tom Ascol and the Founders say that women who teach, preach, or evangelize men are violating God’s “chain of command.” And any denomination or convention that allows women in leadership are “sinning” by breaking “God’s rules.”
But many Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, gifted teachers in the body of Christ disagree with Tom and the Founders.
Read what Ray Steadman had to say about authority among Christians.
There is no command structure in Christianity.
Authority among Christians is not derived from the same source as worldly authority, nor is it to be exercised in the same manner. The world’s view of authority places men over one another, as in a military command structure, a business executive hierarchy, or a governmental system. This is as it should be. Urged by the competitiveness created by the Fall of the human race, and faced with the rebelliousness and ruthlessness of sinful human nature, the world could not function without the use of command structures and executive decision making.
But as Jesus carefully and clearly stated, “it shall not be so among you.” Disciples are always in a different relationship to one another than are the “worldlings,” those who are outside of the church. Christians are brothers and sisters, children of one Father and members of one another in the body of Christ. Jesus put it clearly in Matthew 23:8, “You have one teacher, and you are all brethren.”
Throughout twenty centuries, the church has virtually ignored these words. Probably with the best of intentions, it has repeatedly borrowed the authority structures of the world, changed the names of executives from kings, generals, captains, presidents, governors, secretaries, heads and chiefs to popes, patriarchs, bishops, stewards, deacons, pastors and elders, and gone merrily on its way, lording it over the brethren and destroying the model of servanthood which our Lord intended.
In most churches today, an unthinking acceptance has been given to the idea that the pastor is the final voice of authority in both doctrine and practice, and that he is the executive officer of the church with respect to administration. But surely, if a pope over the whole church is bad, a pope in every church is no better!
According to Tom Ascol and the Founders, God forbidding women to teach, to preach, to evangelize, to shepherd men “is not unclear, it’s just unpopular” (13:10 in the video).
Sorry, Tom. It may be clear in your mind, but it’s just as clear in my mind that you are mishandling the Scriptures. You and the Founders flounder over authority.
In Conclusion:
My friend Dwight McKissic is in the video at minute fifteen. Dwight speaks about the inconsistency of the Southern Baptist Convention sending Lottie Moon to China to preach, teach, and evangelize men and women overseas, but now the SBC is seeking to prevent women like Beth Moore preaching to “white men” in America.
Dwight McKissic makes a valid point.
Tom Ascol comes in with his rebuttal to Dwight McKissic. Read carefully what Tom says (minute 16).
“I sat down with the Vice-President for Global Training of the International Mission Board and asked him about the policies of the IMB with regard to women serving as missionaries. I asked him specifically if we send women overseas to preach to men... and he said, ‘Absolutely not….’ The International Mission Board is operating on the basis of the Baptist Faith and Message which says, “The role of pastor is limited to qualified men.”
That is a classic “bait and switch” by Tom Ascol.
Tom starts talking about Dwight McKissic’s illustration of Lottie Moon going to China to evangelize the Chinese – men, women, and children – by preaching (proclaiming) the gospel. That’s the function of the missionary and the purpose for which Lottie Moon was sent as a missionary to China.
But Tom switches to talking about “the role of pastor.”
Tom and the Founders are attempting to frame the debate around “pastors” and “pastoral authority” by defining the role or function of a pastor as being something “reserved for males.” A member of the Founders also made a (failed) motion at the Southern Baptist Convention this year that “the function of a pastor is to be reserved for males.”
When I heard that motion at the 2019 SBC, I tweeted my response:
When all you care about is protecting authority, you must specifically define the function and role of the person in “authority” so guardians of the galaxy of authority will know when someone without “authority” gets too close to “authority.”
It’s a crazy game.
Tom Ascol proceeds in the film to call Dwight McKissic “dishonest” and says he is being “sinful” by talking about Lottie Moon preaching to men on the mission field. She never did, says Tom.
Tom needs to catch up on some reading. I realize that revisionists have pressured the IMB to say Lottie Moon went to evangelize only women and children…
But anyone who’s read anything about Lottie Moon’s ministry understands that she led men to Jesus Christ by preaching and proclaiming the gospel to men, women, and children.
Lottie Moon was gifted by Christ to teach others about the Kingdom.
But she’s a woman. The Founders flounder over “spiritual authority,” so Lottie Moon doesn’t fit neatly into their narrative.
Neither does Joanna P. Moore (1832-1916), a Southern Baptist home missionary appointee (a single woman) who taught preachers about the sin of drunkenness.
I was a trustee of the International Mission Board. I know where views of inherent male authority over women leads, and it’s not pretty (please pay attention to Number 4).
Tom Ascol and the Founders are on the losing end of this debate. They are unbiblical and illogical in their arguments, as well as infatuated with authority in their misjudgments.
I’ve written two books exposing the problem: Hardball Religion and Fraudulent Authority.
If someone asks me, “Can women be in an office of pastoral authority over men?” I answer, “No.” But I also point out that neither can men be in an office of pastoral authority over women.
The entire problem is fraudulent authority of the pastor.
The only authority in the church is Jesus Christ and He dispenses gifts to His people, building His church, as He sees fit. He is the Head; we are His body.
At the eight minute, ten-second mark, Josh Buice makes this statement:
“When we talk about the abuse of women, I would go on the record stating that if we ask a woman to do something spiritually that God did not intend her to do, that’s abuse.”
Tom responded to Josh:
“That’s abuse. That’s a great point.”
Gentlemen, you might want to consider this statement:
“When we talk about the abuse of women, if we prevent a woman from doing something spiritually that God has gifted her to do, that’s abuse.”
As my great-grandfather used to say, “Put that in your pipe and smoke it.”
1st
I have been reading through Scott McKnight’s “Reading Romans Backwards”.
I had previously formed a pretty confident opinion that Romans does not mean what we think it means on our conventional (protestant reformational) readings — as a single (thought to my mind stunning) example, “wrath” in Romans does not look at all what conventional readings of Gospels would lead one to expect. Paul does not seem to think that the Gentiles were in danger of the gehenna judgment of which Jesus spoke in His prophetic warnings to Israel.
Back to McKnight:
McKnight’s book is an eye-opener in that it attempts (persuasively IMO) to lead out from the text (“exegete”) the specific problems within the churches at Rome that occasioned Paul’s writing of the letter. In my multi-decades of hearing Romans taught I have never so heard this question so much as noticed.
In McKnight’s reading of Romans starting with the final chapters, he notices right away that Paul entrusted the letter to a woman, Phoebe. Her job was not simply to physically carry and deliver the letter, but to performatively read it to the several congregations at Rome. (Aside — Ben Witherington has written an spoken a great deal about the concept of performative reading. Witherington sees evidence in Paul’s writing style that his letters were meant to be read out loud — performed — to their recipients).
It’s revealing that Paul entrusted the task of performing (and presumably explaining, when inevitable questions arose) his letter to the churches at Rome.
I imagine that had the Founders been there in the AD50s and 60s, they could have straightened Paul’s thinking out on this matter.
Re: “If someone asks me, “Can women be in an office of pastoral authority over men?” I answer, “No.” But I also point out that neither can men be in an office of pastoral authority over women.”
I agree as a practical matter.
OTOH, I would be willing to cheerfully concede someone’s claim to have the “authority of the keys” — on the basis of Jesus’ promise to the apostles — if that person could also concretely demonstrate that other of Jesus’ promises to the apostles also applied to him (or her). For example, the promise that the Father will grant whatever the apostles ask in Jesus’ name.
Go into the hospitals and heal the sick in Jesus’ name, and into the morgues and raise the dead in Jesus’ name, and I will gladly acknowledge that person’s pastoral authority. After all, which is easier to say, “I have pastoral authority” or “get up our of your ER bed and go home”, but that present-day believers may know who has authority from God ….
Though well written, Mr. Burleson’s post fails to address a key issue, that being I Timothy 2:12. This is especially odd given that Mr. Burleson quotes from Galatians and I Corinthians (both written by Paul) in support of no male-female distinction in the Body of Christ, yet totally ignores another passage that Paul which is the central passage used by theologians in defense of male-only preachers.
The Founders would probably like to have a word with Jesus regarding why he chose to appear first to a woman, Mary Magdalene, after the resurrection and charge her with going to the disciples. After all, we can’t have women proclaiming the Good News! /sarcasm
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
This is a really good point!
NT Wright has argued that this is a strong argument for the historicity of the Gospel resurrection narratives — no-one would have made up stories about such an important event with women as central characters; they were not considered to be able to give reliable testimony (and you even get a sense of this in the Lukan Emmaus road narrative: “some of our women astonished us …”)
NTW also notes that in Paul’s telling, decades later, of the ‘authorized’ narrative in 1 Cor 15, the women are not present. He interprets this as an institutional erasure of what was at the time regarded to be an embarrassing detail. It’s good that the Gospel writers preserved the original historical memory.
—
A bit of good news (small “g” and “n”) in all this is that movements that disempower and demoralize more than half of their people probably will not prove on the long (or perhaps very long) run to have a lot of staying power. That’s an “under the sun” interpretation/application of a famous Pauline saying, that “God is not mocked”.
Fae today’s astronomical photo:
In a previous post, which showed a similar transit but of the International Space Station, you can see that the ISS is many times larger than the planet Mercury.
Well reasoned exegesis, as expected from Wade Burleson. But I am curious as to why “over 50% of the congregation” tolerates this.
It’s a very compelling argument, but how can you expect us to believe you when you don’t include a proof text?
Nick Bulbeck,
No, only closer to the observers
“In an egalitarian world, I should be equally sought out to sing a solo or getting the congregation to clap along with the hot new song.”
NO, not at all. Egalitarians never say that. A woman equally qualified for a position should be treated equally with a man—or some version of that. No one of us has ever said a person who has no musical ability should be treated the same as another person who is well-qualified musically. That notion is just plain silly!
Samuel Conner,
Well, NTW setting of Paul against the gospel writers is enough reason not to take him seriously when he’s talking about Paul. I thought NTW was above that standard unbelieving claptrap that masquerades as scholarship.
I mean, it just couldn’t be that Paul is delivering an incredibly concise retelling of the resurrection account. There’s lots he doesn’t include that gospels tell us about, after all. Must be a conspiracy to keep only some people in power.
What’s interesting to me is that the same people, such as NTW, who would make that argument are probably so willing to trust Paul where they think he agrees with their 21st century Western views of men and women. I’m sure they have no problem with Gal. 3:28 and thinking that Paul somehow forgot to institutionalize that one. I’m sure their trusting of that text but not 1 Cor. 15 must having nothing to do with any preconceived notions of what the early Christian community had to be like, notions that somehow the church missed until the 19th century.
Good response from Wade, and kudos for watching the whole video. I made it almost an hour through that confusing drizzle!!!! I also noticed Tom switching Dwights argument from what Dwight said Lottie Moon actually did, to what IMB does today based on the bastardized 2000 BF&M, and then turning backwards to chide Dwight and call him sinful. Silly logical aerobics and actually quite spiteful.
Dee,
Three questions for you:
1. Aren’t you a member of a Missouri Synod Lutheran Church?
2. Why do you not also call them out for not ordaining women to the pastorate or allowing them to exercise an authoritative office? In fact, from what I can tell, the Missouri Synod’s position on women in the church isn’t substantially different from what The Founders or any other complementarian group would teach. For example, see “The Creator’s Tapestry” in the Missouri Synod’s document library on men and women in marriage: https://www.lcms.org/about/leadership/commission-on-theology-and-church-relations/documents/man-and-woman-in-the-church
3. You seem to be an egalitarian. If so, why even attend a Missouri Synod church? Are there no good, gospel-preaching egalitarian churches near you? Or, am I wrong that you are an egalitarian?
Not looking to start a debate. I’m glad that you go after the many problems with sex abuse and dictatorial leadership styles in many modern evangelical settings. I’m just confused by the above.
Thanks!
“The entire problem is fraudulent authority of the pastor. The only authority in the church is Jesus Christ and He dispenses gifts to His people, building His church, as He sees fit. He is the Head; we are His body.” (Wade Burleson)
Pastor Burleson hits on a central issue in our churches today: the waning authority of Jesus. It is certainly more noticeable in hardcore patriarchal groups like the Founders who manipulate, intimidate and dominate everybody and everything under their watch, but it is a widespread problem throughout Christendom. Jesus has almost no authority among many groups called by His Name, which ignore His absolute Lordship over ‘His’ church. They don’t trust Him and seek Him as they ought, so it’s no wonder that they drift so far from the Truth. They have successfully diminished the power of Christ in ‘His’ Body by ignoring and limiting the giftings of all members of the Church of the Living God.
There is power in the teachings and traditions of men, power in ritual and custom, power in pet theologies that depend on man’s interpretation of Scripture rather than guidance of the Holy Spirits. Folks like the Founders and their young sidekicks, the New Calvinists, don’t want to surrender their grip on authority and power by giving it all to Jesus. Mohler is no different from Ascol in this regard as he strives to establish his kingdom of new reformers. The Father gave Jesus all authority in Heaven and in earth … our spiritual leaders and churches would do well to give it back to Him.
That’s an interesting thought. If the New Calvinists would read Romans backwards far enough, they would discover the Gospels! Indeed, if they were to read the Gospels first, the writings of Paul would come into perspective. If they read the epistles without the Gospels in mind and heart, they might miss Jesus … and it appears they have done just that in their belief and practice.
Robert,
I don’t think that NTW sets Paul against the gospel writers. He may be setting them against the posture of the Jerusalem apostles in the decades after the resurrection — the tradition Paul references in 1 Cor 15, which privileges Peter, presumably was shaped by the leadership of the Jerusalem church.
It’s hard not to see a hint of tension between the Gospel accounts that Jesus first appeared to women, and Paul’s telling of the tradition he received ** from the apostles ** in which the first mention of anyone is Peter. The statement isn’t false, it just leaves some of the details out. NTW proposes a reason why it does that, and it’s an eminently reasonable reason.
Wright sees this not as “Paul against the Gospels”, but “the hierarchy of the Jerusalem church redacting the tradition to elide details that would be embarrassing in their social context”.
Robert,
Thank you for your thoughtful questions. You can be assured I’ve thought long and hard about this.
1. For years, I did attend an excellent egalitarian church when I lived in Dallas-Bent Tree. When I move here, I had a problem. I am somewhat conservative in my theology. (Don’t laugh. )I have yet to find a church in my area that combines conservative theology and egalitarian thinking like I had at Bent Tree. I continue my friendship with JoAnne Hummel, a pastor and Mitch Little, the head elder at that church.
2. After observing my current LCMS church for 2 1/2 years, my husband and I decided to throw our lot in with them. The LCMS will never have female pastors in my lifetime. Knowing this, I made the decision to join and accept what happens at my church. IIn fact, I have done far more than that. I have embraced Lutheran teaching on issues like communion and law and grace.
The LCMS have set things up so that the elders at my church are the two pastors. Then they are advised by the leadership council which is made up of the leaders of all the ministries. This means that men and women are involved in giving advice and perspective. If you have read this blog for any length of time, you will find that I have suggested that complementation churches create a council of women to give input to the elders. There is nothing in Scripture that speaks against this but I’m sure John Piper can find one.
The pastors go out of their way to promote the DCE who is a woman. She is considered integral in the church function. They also have women who serve as ushers, read Scripture from the altar, and serve communion. The midweek church dinners are planned and executed by the men of the church.
To be perfectly frank, this church includes women in the life of the church far more than my former two churches.-Reformed Baptist and nondenominational Calvinist.There is a huge difference in both the functionality and the atmosphere.
The pastors are well aware of my blog as well. They have been more than supportive, living out the belief of the freedom of conscience which is given to all men and women. I have gone out of my way to say that this blog represents my thoughts on the matter-not my church’s thoughts on the matter.
Finally, as they read Scripture and apply it, they make sure that the attendees understand that women are included in what is being read. They avoid the debatable issues like the man/women ESV Genesis controversy. I am impressed with the way they function within certain parameters.
I hope my answer makes sense to you. I am so grateful to have discovered this church in my area since I am totally surrounded by hardcore Baptist Calvinism due to its proximity to SEBTS. One again, let me express my profound thanks to the two pastors. They have their hands full in dealing with me yet they go out of their way to make me feel loved and accepted.
Andrew,
I believe that Tom Ascol is treading on unScriptural grounds. he will have to stand before God one day and explain why he called a decent man like McKissic sinful. We should have the freedom to explore out thoughts on this matter without having men life Ascol running around and crying *sinful* when we disagree with him.
d4v1d,
For the same reason slavery was accepted for centuries. It was just th estates quo. It is now changing.
Mark R,
He has discussed this extensively on his website. He is one brave man. He takes on everything. That is why The Founders have targeted him.
I’m not sure that our freedom to differ theologically with those who disagree — a wonderful freedom for which I am thankful — necessarily entails their moral duty to not call us names that we don’t like. They’re doing religion the way they think it should be done, and treating us more or less like unbelievers (I would be very surprised if on close examination it were found that TA has employed the Mt 18 process with everyone he criticizes).
I think that 1 Cor 11:19 might be appropriate. The only sour note to my mind is that we have had 2000 years for it to become apparent “who is approved”, and the answer seems as elusive as ever.
Dee,
Thanks. That does make more sense.
For what it’s worth, I’m not really sure why some of the modern complementarians such as Piper seem to absolutely refuse such things as women advising the elders, at least on matters of special concern to women and wives. Historically, what we might call the “complementarian” position of people such as Luther, Calvin and many others seems to have allowed for women to take a more prominent role in congregational life and ministry than a lot of the more modern complementarians allow. Probably a lot of that is swinging the pendulum against twentieth century secular feminism too far in the other direction.
Without wanting to engage all of Wade’s article here, I have to say he makes a couple of major blunders:
Without getting into the technicalities of Reformed Covenant theology, those who hold to it believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are as binding on followers of Jesus in terms of “faith and practice” as they are to the Jews of ancient days and to orthodox Jews today.
This simply isn’t true. If it were true, then Reformed Christians would be refusing pork, sacrificing lambs, etc. The Reformed position would be more akin to saying, “Unless Jesus or the Apostles rescind it, it remains binding.”
Jesus ended that Old Covenant with the Jews and made all things new – radically new.
It’s unclear to me what Burleson means by this other than that what Jesus did now means that women can serve as church elders. But that’s certainly not the historic Christian position. For one, all Christian traditions—Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed, the strain of Baptists from which the Southern Baptists come, Wesleyans, Anglicans, have all affirmed that the Ten Commandments are abiding norms for Christians. Jesus might deepen our understanding of them, but they are no less binding on us than they were on the Jews. The radical newness of the new covenant is not that the old covenant Scriptures are done away with. That seems to be what Burleson is perilously close to saying.
For two, and I’m not really interested in debating the correctness of this, all of the aforementioned traditions limited the pastor/elder/priest office to men until the twentieth century or so. Perhaps they were wrong to do so, but Burleson should be clearer that he is breaking from the tradition on this point.
I also thought that was a strange way of saying it. I think dee is criticizing the terminology, but words take on the meaning they take on? We know that in this context, it absolutely does not mean this.
Arguing over terminology is kind of side thing to me/the same semantics men in the patriarchal churches use to say women can do a whole bunch of stuff but never have titles or ‘authority’ whatever that means. It is silly.
This atmosphere thing is very important.
It is hard to find a ‘conservative’ church that is egalitarian and there are reasons for that that are worth thinking over, but it sounds like you found a balance that works for you.
I’m not sure this is as hard as we try to make it.
“Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
Christians are those that follow Christ.
I wouldn’t swear by it, but I don’t think it’s that hard to tell if someone is following Christ, or themselves, or someone else. Many people are pretty transparent about what they desire most, particularly if you ask them what kind of church they envision.
I visited several churches in a denomination that claimed to be egalitarian, and they had few women serving as leaders or advisors. An article I read said that they had maybe 7% female pastors.
I attended a LCMS church that had a female music minister and my (co-ed) Sunday School teacher was female. They had woman advisors as well. They had more women in leadership than a supposedly egalitarian church nearby. I grew up LCMS and there were probably more women involved in running my childhood church than men, even though it did have a male pastor (who was one of the most shepherd-like people I have ever met).
I don’t know that I could officially join another church since I have problems now with the idea of church membership. I’ve actually been going to an Episcopal church online because I feel so burned by church right now.
All part of scare tactics, fear-mongering, whuppin’ a potentially threatening BAD GUY and justifying why we need someone to save someone’s form of religion. I was on the bad-guy side of the New Calvinists push when they were doing the same thing. Now to see The Founders vs. The New Calvinists in the same ring. A kingdom divided against itself . . .
Funny how God allows that to happen. So often he never has to raise a hand – the evil ones expose and devour one another in their thirst for power and control.
Historically, fundamentalists in the Baptist tradition gain brownie points for themselves by railing against supposed liberalism, distancing themselves from it, or (for a few extra points) the ultimate move which is leaving a group/stream in a loud way. I call this the P.O.O. Strategy (Pulling Out Overtly). This may have been started unintentionally by Charles Spurgeon during the Down Grade Controversy but it is still common to see how groups make themselves look better by making other groups look worse, thus opening the portal to power and funding.
The problem with wanting power is that there is always someone else who wants it just as much as you do.
Lea,
You are correct. I am critiquing the terminology. I believe that there are a number of things going on in our culture that view as all as being *equal.* This affects many aspects of politics, business, appointments to positions of influence. I really don’t want to go down the world because it eventually leads to political points of views that lead to fights.
I hold to the term *giftedness* as opposed to the term *egalitarian* for a reason. However, to discuss it, I wold have to go down the political/ legislative road and I may as well shoot myself.
This explanation by Paul Young covers it pretty well:
https://youtu.be/iqZQLAvgIWc
I am pretty sure that Wade agrees with this explanation.
Also see this:
https://www.wadeburleson.org/2012/09/the-woman-of-error-in-i-timothy-212.html?m=1
Robert,
I have a problem with using the *historical practice* as being the proof of what is acceptable in the church. Slavery and racism have existed since the beginning. If we were having this argument a couple of centuries ago, I would find people who would claim that it was perfectly sensible to have slaves so long as they are treated correctly. There was a belief that slaves were less human than the Anglos. Even a few decades ago, we could feel pretty proud of ourselves if an African American couple of two attended out church.
I do believe that Covenant theology constitutes a problem. In a discussion with a well known leader, he admitted that, deep down inside, women should have longer hair. Striking out various social, no longer acceptable laws of the Old Testament (a man who rapes a woman must marry her) is fraught with a whole mess of problems.
Before you say that Wade Burleson has *blundered…do you actually think that he believes the the 10 commandments are now extraneous and unnecessary? In other words, he is saying one should commit adultery? (I could do the same thing with all of the commandments.)
I don’t think so. Could it be Wade is taking a broad view of *not committing adultery?” Maybe even the view that Jesus took (lust in your heart)?
Let’s go a step further. John Piper, a covenant theology expositor, loves to discuss things like why a tornado struck a church building, etc. He claimed it struck a liberal Lutheran church because they allow the marriage of gays. He does not seem to take into account that most European countries allow to gay marriage. Some of those countries, like England, even have a recognized state church.
Do you think that God is like a third grade bully who kicks over a sandcastle to prove His point? He is so powerful, he could have pointed his finger at all these governments and destroy a whole mess of churches and sovereign leaders. So what gives?
Piper goes down this road because even he is confused with what stays and what goes in covenant theology. I get what Wade is saying. It comes from honestly observing the church around him. BTW-he considers himself Reformed. I do not consider myself Reformed.
What matters are of special concern to women as opposed to men?
I mean, we know why?
Also, just about every matter is of concern to women, who make up at least half your church. So they should be involved.
Indeed.
From the archives, 9Mark Dever’s own Capitol Hill Baptist (its website trumpets that it’s a church that has always been conservative):
1894 newspaper article profile (125 years ago!)
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn87062244/1894-09-09/ed-1/seq-5/
“Baptist Church, corner of Sixth and A streets northeast…is only sixteen years old but has a membership of 256, a large Sunday-school…It was the Second Baptist society formed on Capitol Hill and in its short life has managed to make itself known all over the United States…IF ANY OF THE LADIES WILL TAKE CHARGE OF ANY BRANCH OF THE WORK THE MALE MEMBERS OF THE CONGREGATION ARE WILLING TO TURN IT OVER TO THEM.”
1944 newspaper article (75 years ago!)
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1944-09-09/ed-1/seq-8/
“Farewell Sermon…the 41 year pastorate of the Rev. Dr. John C. Ball…When he came here in 1903 Theodore Roosevelt was President…the church had a membership of 361. There are almost 3,200 members today…Long service in the church has become a tradition…SEVERAL MEN’S BIBLE CLASSES HAVE BEEN TAUGHT BY WOMEN. ONE CLASS TAUGHT BY MISS GERTRUDE SMITH HAD TO DISBAND BECAUSE ALL OF ITS MEMBERS WERE IN THE ARMED SERVICES. Women teaching 25 years or more are Miss Frances Guschewsky, Miss Florence Gravatte, and Mrs. Daniel C. Shankle.”
Again, the Zero Sum Game.
Where the only way to Win is to Make You Lose.
Where the only way to Climb Up is to Push You Down.
Lobsters in a Bucket and all that.
And this game gets played in the Name of that Rabbi from Nazareth?
In the words of a jingle from a Sixties-vintage Mad Magazine:
“One Black is — Token Integration;
Two Blacks are — a Championship Bout;
Three Blacks are — an Emerging African Nation…”
Like the REAL First Horseman of the Apocalypse, the unnamed Man On A White Horse.
The Man on Horseback who will ride in and with a rod of iron Crush Our Enemies, Save Us, and usher in The Perfect Golden Age.
Invoking Godwin and Mel Brooks (what a combination):
“Germany was in Big Trouble
What a sad sad story!
Needed a new Leader
To restore her former Glory!
Where oh where was He?
Where could that man be?
…”
I am reminded of an old John Michael Talbot song, “Few be the lovers (of the Cross)” — especially the line “who will be first and ask to be rewarded last”.
There’s a Twitter account that’s posted a bunch of stuff on “Capitol Hill Baptist Church history”:
https://twitter.com/MikeF29
Lots of newspaper clippings, but does not post anything like the above articles or about the numerous times Amy Lee Stockton preached there in the 1910s, 1920s, 1930s, & 1940s:
https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1928-10-13/ed-1/seq-12/
“WOMEN EVANGELISTS FROM CALIFORNIA, MISS AMY LEE STOCKTON AND MISS RITA GOULD…WILL BE IN CHARGE OF A MEETING OF THE SUNDAY SCHOOL TOMORROW AND ALSO THE MORNING SERVICE OF THE CHURCH. MISS STOCKTON WILL PREACH”
Why do you suppose things like this are not posted by the Capitol Hill Baptist church history Twitter?
Because (like the Pious Piper) they are weak little men very full of themselves who have to lord it over wimmen because any man they tried that on would fold them up and throw them in a dumpster.
And Pious Piper does it one better with his phobia of “Muscular Women”. Because at 5’4″ (160cm) and built like a wet noodle, most WOMEN could fold him up and stuff him in a dumpster.
The new generation of Southern Baptist leaders are doing their darnedest to purge the history of the contribution of women in the SBC.
They’d rather fall into the Cracks of Doom clutching their PRECIOUSSSSSSSSS Ring of POWER.
“For the hearts of Men are easily corrupted; and a Ring of POWER has a Will of its own.”
And that’s where things like dealmaking — perhaps to have a seat at the table after first establishing a table where power resides — becomes appealing to hirelings and grievous wolves
When I hear the word “Wrath”, I think of this song from the underground video character Foamy the Squirrel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-INnf-3kY
(Only FtS song I could find online that was both germane to the subject and without accompanying NSFW heavy-duty cussing. The context is a hymnal for his Cult.)
How can you read through that and NOT see that he addressed the 1 Tim 2:12 issue (seizure of authority) over and over? That women aren’t to do that, but neither are men.
On a slight tangent (actually more of a wild goose chase, if I’m honest), Lesley was given a bottle of red wine for Christmas by a colleague who’s into wine. It’s a Chateau Ramage la Batisse 2009 Haut Médoc.
So, I looked it up. Apparently it costs about 5 times what we’d normally pay for a bottle of wine.
Joyeux Nöel à tout le monde!
Not to be technical, but 100% of the congregation supports this. BOTH men and women either actively support it or put up with it (to varying degrees) because they like other things about the church.
Sometimes it suits their predispositions -men who want to be in power, women who never wanted to do more than cook church dinners and serve in the nursery anyway.
But I think a whole lot of people tolerate it because they’ve been told complimentarianism is true by “bible experts” (pastors who throw Greek and Hebrew words around) and they’ve simply believed it or they’re afraid to question the teacher. Fear of displeasing God is a powerful force.
This (which is well-known enough; I’m copying it to save emdy looking it up) from Matthew 28:
So: the angel gives the women some new revelation to pass on to the men. Jesus then tops this, and gives them them an instruction to pass on to the men.
We could, of course, attempt to nit-pick this away and contrive to argue that this didn’t count as “teaching” or “revelation” for one reason or another. There are other extremes we could pull out of this as well *. We could say, for instance, that here the scribshers are clearly teaching us that a command from the risen Christ can only come via a woman. We could, one way or another, expound this scribsher fragment to create another shackle on the wall of the dungeon in which men have tried to imprison God. I phrase it like that because the flip-side of saying that “women can’t do x/y/z” is that we’re also saying “Jesus cannot call a woman to do x/y/z”.
Another thing we could do, though, is to ponder what Jesus has done here, and to keep pondering it. That is, to keep it (along with everything else we know about him) in mind at all times and let him use it to teach us about him. Thus, when we see a woman who is clearly gifted in preaching and teaching, we don’t need to be afraid to let her do what Jesus has called her to do because we have the aforementioned testimony in the gospel accounts. Jesus has authority to teach women, and to send them to pass that on to men.
* There are nearly always more than two extremes.
I disagree. I can only speak from my own observations but the Baptist churches that I’ve heard of in our local area tend to be very conservative do what we say type of places. In fact I found this true in my brief foray into evangelical worship.
There’s a big time culture of compliance that has been in place for a long time.
These attitudes are nothing new and were reflected in the secular realm as well. Anyone remember the bugs Bunny episode where he portrayed Groucho Marx “you bet your life” tv show as “do you beat your wife”. I remember that being played into seventies.
Some church groups are really struggling with the shift in society. Women are entering non traditional fields like diesel mechanic, airline pilot and others.
Women are becoming primary wage earners. My wife makes more money than me and I know we’re not alone.
So they double down on the oppression of those in their sphere of influence.
This documentary was never meant to convince us of anything. It’s designed to reinforce an already existing attitude.
I agree. I don’t think a lot of men in the church realize that certain men put immense pressure (and often abuse) on the women around them to conform, whether be wives, daughters, church members, etc. And they often use their wives to put the same pressure on other women in the church. Some women have grown up in the church with this pressure from parents and been told it’s not their job to research the Bible, just accept what they’ve been told. They are shaming God by wanting anything else out of life, as if they are not human and want the same things any man might want. And I think that’s key to understanding this crowd–they don’t want women to be human. They want them to be less than human and not have any desire or need that would take away from the wants of men. And when anyone believes they deserve to be catered to, they tend to want more and more and nothing on this earth can pacify those wants.
There’s a whole lot in the Bible about the least being first and giving up what you want to serve others. It’s a message I almost never hear directed at leaders of movements like the Founders and New Calvinists. I hear it a lot directed at the “peons”. Give it up to those higher than you, but never the other way around.
The other day I read a reddit post about a boss who got mad that his employees didn’t want to take him out to expensive dinner and drinks every week. I suspect there was a cultural component in that, since I lived in Japan and that was common practice there, but most of the respondents on the post said that the boss should be paying and the “money” flow down instead of up, because the person at the top already has so much and often the people below had little. I believe Jesus was very clear that his followers should give away before expecting to be given, and I don’t trust any church leader who tries to reverse that.
dee,
Dee, I have been through the same journey, going from Baptist to Calvinist to non- Denom.I am finally ( and joyfully) at home in my LCMS church for 7 years. I am not a proponent of the female pastor issue, so that is not a bother to me. I AM a proponent of women functioning within the church on an equal footing with men. We hold church offices,run important functions within the church, pray and teach before men, question the pastor during Sunday school, assist with Communion….there is no comparison with the sense of acceptance and freedom I have found here. What a blessing the LCMS has been for me.
dee,
Dee, I have been through the same journey, going from Baptist to Calvinist to non- Denom.I am finally ( and joyfully) at home in my LCMS church for 7 years. I am not a proponent of the female pastor issue, so that is not a bother to me. I AM a proponent of women functioning within the church on an equal footing with men. We hold church offices,run important functions within the church, pray and teach before men, question the pastor during Sunday school, assist with Communion….there is no comparison with the sense of acceptance and freedom I have found here. What a blessing the LCMS has been for me.
This is particularly clear when they accuse women who do anything other than clean the house and birthing children of ‘trying to be like men’. Because men are real people and women aren’t.
Someone once said ‘Feminism is ‘the radical notion that women are people…’. I think Jack is on point that some of this is just backlash against society and pushback of restrictions on women. They have doubled down by trying to make things *more* restrictive than they were 100 years ago in many ways. That tells you something.
Heck, the Founders won’t even accept that female believers are children of God … adopted into the Kingdom and one in Christ with men, equal in His eyes. The Body of Christ they evidently don’t want to live in has no distinctions of race, class or gender. They just can’t stand the thought of not being able to oppress others … to manipulate, intimidate and dominate … to control every jot and tittle of another’s spiritual position before God. These patriarchs are the meanest of the meanest the organized church has to offer. You can cut the oppression with a knife when you visit one of their churches, you can see bondage etched on the countenance of the women.
I know in college the messaging was real strong to men that marriage meant men would get all their “needs” and wants taken care of. God created their wives to be beautiful their whole lives and want to cater to their every desire. Women got the message that marriage would “fix” all longings and desire to belong–so long as they submitted to men. Marriage was presented as this permanent fix to lust, loneliness, and financial issues.
When men got married and women suddenly turned out to be as human as them, with a lot of complex issues, sickness, and not a huge desire to be a full-time servant, they couldn’t reconcile the promises they got with a real, human partner. So I guess they figure if they yell loud enough, suddenly women will turn into robots.
This bears repeating. I was fortunate to know some women born before 1900. Married or single, they all had far more agency than would be allowed in any church covered by TWW.
I read this post last night. Early this morning I dreamed that I was preaching to a mixed group (and being encouraged to do so by a man) and being asked by a tall white male to pray for the group.
“And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your elders will dream dreams, your youth will see visions. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days.”
Joel 2:28-29 NIV
Aslan is on the move!
Geraldo was on tv the other day and actually said ‘But what I think a woman brings to a marriage more than anything else, to a relationship, is her youth.’ I mean…just maintain your youth forever or be judged and replaced. Because that’s realistic.
It is really disturbing what people are learning about relationships, and I think it would have to be compounded by the fact that everybody is sort of on their best behavior early on, and then eventually you start to see the reality, which is that we are none of us robots. We all have needs, women and men, and a relationship which only meets one sides needs is going to be deeply unsatisfying.
[I want to go into attachment styles stuff here because I read a really interesting book about it after my last breakup, but it may not actually be relevant]
I knew some young men who were conservative catholics almost 20 years ago who made ‘jokes’ about how women should not be allowed to vote, and I just thought they were idiot 21 year olds at the time, but now I see it more and more. It’s very disturbing and I think deliberately our rights as women are being disparaged and targeted.
It mirrors the clear teaching of Scripture:
At least, I think that’s what it says. It must be, right?
Laura,
The Baptists I know warned me about going to an LCMS church. They claimed I would find a strict and joyless church. I have found just the opposite.I still remember my first visit to the church. I was looking for a church with a Saturday evening service and this one was the first nonmegachurch I could find. It was in January. This lovely stone church constructed in the early 2000s was lit with candles and the contemporary stained glass windows reflected the light. The small group of musicians and vocalists sang contemporary songs but it wasn’t a performance. Everything in the service made sense to me and it was just plain good.I loved the pastors who didn’t pursue us but said hello and learned our names.
At the end of the service, my husband and I looked at each other in amazement. I said “Did you enjoy that as much as I did?” He did and instead of looking at other churches, we just kept coming, waiting for the other shoe to drop. It didn’t. We are now members and have been attending for several years.
I am so glad for your comment. I think there are some who come to this blog and wonder about my church affiliation. One person has even attempted to negate my experience, claiming that I couldn’t be correct when I discuss the role that women play in the life of the church.
For the first time in 20 years, I am at peace with my church and actually look forward to attending the church as well as contributing as a woman to the life of the church. My husband loves the church as well and remarked that he wants to be buried in their columbarium.
I am not here to tell folks that they should go to their local LCMS church instead of the churches they have chosen. I respect and honor their decisions. The Echurch features Wade Burleson’s sermons.He is SBC, through and through! He is my friend and has helped me understand things through the years.
I am most grateful for several churches in my past and will always be grateful to those churches for helping me to grow in my faith. Actually I am grateful for the experience in all churches I attended. Those negative experiences led to me discovering the depth of abuse in all Protestant churches.
Now, I am growing in my faith as a Lutheran and am so happy to find that I have much more to learn from their theology and thinking.. Last Lent, I read through Luther’s Small Catechism. I so enjoyed it.
Thank you for echoing my experience. I have heard from several others who would agree.
Dee–try the longer catechism from Luther and let us know what you think.
linda
Living Selah,
Amen. Selah.
Dee and Laura,
Keep on keeping on. Women in leadership at our church has been the greatest blessing these last few years! The women have “saved our bacon” on many occasions.
I find it ironic that Baptist leaders speak freely of the sin of homosexual marriages, but are stunningly silent when it comes to same sex leadership in churches. I believe Scripture teaches that marriage is designed for a man and a woman (but I also believe in CIVIC equality for those who disagree with me on this issue and live in homosexual marriages. I also believe church leadership is at its best when both men and women complement each other in gifted teaching, leadership, and service, and I strongly disagree with homosexual (I use the word allegorically) leadership in Baptist churches.
Thanks, ladies, for your transparency in sharing your stories. I was blessed.
That actually happened in Southern Baptist life! Many SBC churches (with both tall and short white male leaders) welcomed Bertha Smith to preach from their pulpits when she was home on furlough as a SBC foreign missionary for 40+ years. Many pastors gave testimony of her influence on them going deeper in their spiritual walk with Christ, just as she challenged many SBC church members to ‘really’ pray for lost souls around the world. The Founders would have none of that, of course; thus, they have none of the mantle she carried.
Dee,
I’ll just list one: What it means to love one’s husband.
It shouldn’t be the exclusive proof, but it should be given high respect unless there is a strong exegetical argument to do otherwise. Furthermore, racism was not a part of the church from the beginning. It’s a historical aberration. Slavery is a bit more complicated, but its enough to say that race-based slavery certainly wasn’t a part of the church or the Western world until centuries after the Apostolic era.
Many missionary churches don’t have a lot of men to be leaders. The church I worked at only had a few men, as most men in that culture worked 6-7 days a week and had no interest in giving up any free time for worship, since they had so little free time. Women did most everything. The idea that men should lead everything and everyone should give up their Sunday for church is one that only works well in first world cultures with a 5-day work week.
I also think many of these church leaders don’t even understand working class dynamics in the US. They may work 20 hours a week and still expect to be paid six figures for their “hard work of the ministry”.
Pastor Burleson,
I was a Southern Baptist for 70+ years until I joined the Done ranks earlier this year (done with the SBC, but not done with Jesus). I bear testimony to women saving many rural churches when the going got tough, when their wimpy men stopped going when the going got tough. They stepped in the gap to keep the lights on, teach/preach in Jesus’ name, and minister to the hungry, hurting and dying in rural communities … both saving and cooking the bacon in many churches. IMO, female believers grow closer to the heart of the suffering Saviour because they too have suffered (unfortunately, even at the hand of SBC leaders). In my SBC tenure, I knew more godly women than godly men.
I’m not aware of anything in covenant theology that says women should have long hair. I’m not sure what you mean by the second sentence; if you mean that determining how and which OT laws still apply is hard, well, sure.
Tangentially, the OT doesn’t actually say that a woman must marry her rapist. To put it simply, the text in question is talking about a man who successfully seduced an unmarried woman, with her consent, after trying really hard. Our English translations tend to obscure that because the Hebrew word used there is not typically used for rape. (Just did four papers on the subject. If you want some more resources, I can give them to you.)
My guess is that in practice he does not think the 10 commandments are obsolete, except for maybe the Sabbath commandment and the commandment against images (like most American Protestants believe these days that those commandments are obsolete/done away with.) I’m willing to give Wade the benefit of the doubt; I’m just pointing out where what he wrote that you quoted goes.
The problem is this statement:
“Without getting into the technicalities of Reformed Covenant theology, those who hold to it believe that the Hebrew Scriptures are as binding on followers of Jesus in terms of “faith and practice” as they are to the Jews of ancient days and to orthodox Jews today.”
Which is just simply wrong. Reformed Covenant theology (and Christian theology in general) says that the Old Testament is equal in authority to the New Testament. But neither RCovenant theology nor Christian theology in general believe that the laws are followed in the same way, otherwise we’d all be getting rid of bacon. And who wants to do that?
Perhaps Wade was just speaking quickly and didn’t reread his post before posting it, but no Reformed Covenant theologian will say or teach that the Old Testament is binding in the same way on us today as it was in ancient Israel, and especially not the way it is for Orthodox Jews. Moreover, even Lutheran theologians and ethicists look to the Old Testament laws to discern the principles behind them and how they apply today. Every Christian does that except for the really hyper dispensationalists.
Burleson is correct enough that Jesus is our lens for interpreting Scripture. The problem is that it isn’t possible to interpret Jesus without in some way looking at him through the lens of the OT. If you don’t do that, you end up with a Jesus who is not Jewish. In practice, I’m sure Burleson does that as well, because you have to in order to understand Jesus. But his post above is poorly worded.
“If someone asks me, ‘“Can women be in an office of pastoral authority over men?”’ I answer, ‘“No.”’ But I also point out that neither can men be in an office of pastoral authority over women. Yup! Since I have come to believe in zero hierarchy in the church, it is much easier to answer the gender egalitarian questions. There is no need for me to waste time with biblical gender explanations on those people who like popish polity.
Let me assure you that I have no interest in defending Piper and the wacky comments he made. Anyone who sets himself up as a judge of God’s providence in the here and now is simply doing it wrong. I have very many disagreements with Piper, and that number has only increased over the years.
Having said that, Piper is not a covenant theologian. He denies the covenant of works, and he does so explicitly. He is Reformed to the extent that he believes in the five points of Calvinism, but that really just makes him a Calvinist. There’s more to being Reformed than being a Calvinist.
I don’t know what it means that Burleson calls himself Reformed. From a historical Reformed perspective, if you deny Reformed covenantal theology, you aren’t Reformed. It would be like someone claiming to be Lutheran but denying the Law-Gospel distinction. That person isn’t Lutheran in his theology no matter what he claims. BTW, this also means that Piper isn’t actually Reformed. “Reformed Baptist” is a recent term used for those who would be historically called “Particular Baptists” or even “Primitive Baptists.”
On a side note, I know you’re not Reformed. You’re Lutheran, right? Fun fact: I grew up in the ELCA, and I have a strong tradition of Lutheranism in my extended family. My aunt’s (married to my father’s brother) family is from the Nordic countries, and she remains a devout Lutheran. My aunt and uncle are members at a Missouri Synod church.
Why do you think the Almighty chose the woman’s genome to bring himself into this world?
Can you elaborate a bit more on what the tall man’s skin color had to do with it?
Lea,
Well, I don’t know Geraldo personally to ask for clarification, but it sounds unattractive to me(that is , his mental approach to relationships is unattractive to me) and when I think of other close female church friends who do seem, at times, to be flattered when a man(or woman) measures them by superficial standards(and domestic service standards), I wonder why they are still putting up with that at their ages and not only putting up with it but moved greatly by it, as if that is sweet, deep, meaningful and delightful. I’m sad for my friends who react this way and I don’t share in their celebration of being superficially measured. In reality, though, my friends are more than that, it’s just that there have been moments along these lines. The larger reality is that we do have good memories of shared non-superficial experiences over time and I’m grateful for my friends from youth and my friends at other stages of life.
Also, along the lines of superficiality versus not, I recall a book that someone gave me, which I don’t have readily on hand, but the author was female describing her shift from concern about being chosen to realizing the “true thing”, the more important thing, in reality, is in the choosing. I can’t quite remember the wording. Stealing, manipulating people so that they lose opportunity for true choice will never be sustainable without a demonstrated movement toward mutual respect, IMO. Self-respect and human dignity are bound together. It seems to me like the reality is that if you love someone, (and if you want to be loved) you will want to respect and preserve the importance of human dignity and its tie to personal choice.
I hope for better contexts, relational experiences, for young adults, especially, than being steeped in Founders- type contexts or even for young women and men being steeped in elderly women cultures that are “in awe” of pastors(something I’ve heard at times). I hope for critical thinking for young adults(and myself).
d4v1d,
I don’t believe he provides a well-reasoned exegesis here at all. He quotes a number of different verses out of context to support what he wants to say. Whether you agree or disagree with Wade’s premise or conclusion, I don’t agree that he provides a well-reasoned exegesis. Seems more like eisegesis.
Wade Burleson,
Loved your comment. It so challenged my expectations that the words bounced off my eyeballs the first two times I read it. 😉
Robert,
I think I understand you. You consider yourself classic Reformed. I have heard from a number of theology professors who claim that the Pipers of this world, that the Reformed Baptists , that the YRRs out there are not really Reformed. I think the Reformed community has a real problem. The definition of Reformed is in the eyes of those who claim to be truly Reformed.
Am I getting you or am I off base?
The threat of Eternal Hell is quite a motivator to fall quietly into line.
Come to think of it, in that song Foamy was also channeling the Calvinist god!
When the dust settles from the New Calvinism madness sweeping through the American church, one of the greatest mission fields on earth for the true Gospel will be among the empty and disillusioned stepchildren of the new reformation.
No, Max.
They will probably be Fundamentalist Atheists on the level of Madelyn Murray O’Hair.
The word “God” will be synonymous with Abuse and Destruction, and the sooner anything to do with that Abuse and Destruction is wiped from the face of the earth the better. “NEVER AGAIN!”
Remember how vaccination works? Expose the subject to a fake or impotent version of a pathogen. Then when the subject is exposed to the REAL pathogen, his/her immune system will immediately REJECT and DESTROY it.
Respectfully, this “special concern” is very narrow in focus. A significant number of women are not married (never married, divorced, or widowed). Add to their ranks those who are married but whose personalities or giftings (likewise, those of their husbands) do not fit into traditional black-and-white gender roles. Even Emerson Eggerichs in “Love and Respect” said that 25% of couples do not fit into traditional gender roles, and he is in the business of supporting traditional gender roles, so I suspect the actual number to be higher.
May I ask, what other areas of special concern do you see pertaining solely or primarily to women?
I think the only hope for Evangelicals to move forward on this is to grow an appreciation for Church history and that forbidden word… “tradition”. To stop thinking that there’s nothing to learn after the first century. Once enough people get over that bump, there is much to learn from and have fruitful discussions about. And I’m not saying to become Catholic or Orthodox or anything. Only that there’s much to learn from the rich history we all share. Nor will detractors be able to say you’re being “radical” or “innovative”. Rather, this is actually a more conservative approach, if anything. Moving forward by actually looking into the past. It’s the radical who ignores the past. Not the one who learns from it.
But first off, Paul’s concern was sacramental and liturgical. Church leadership reflected our High Priest in heaven. And thus, some offices and speaking roles were male. Because Christ is male. They were still a heavily Jewish movement, and followed liturgical models from synagogue and Temple tradition. So he wasn’t even talking about “Church” in the same sense that some in our modern Western context understand it, where leadership roles that he prescribed are tossed out these days, or barely exist. The same people who talk about female subordination don’t even follow liturgy or even have priests/presbyters. They reinvented church with one catch-all office: “Preachers”. And few consistently celebrate the Lord’s Supper either. How are they are going to understand anything else when they can’t even get the most important things down?
But back to what I started with: Tradition. If silencing women was all so “obvious”, then why did the early Church have such a great tradition of female saints? Why did they admire Mary the most out of all saints? Why did they call Mary Magadelene “The Apostle to the Apostles”, for being the one who reported Jesus’ resurrection to Peter and the others? This was a title of great honor. Christ himself tasked a woman with the Gospel of Life even before the men. Why did the early church have heroic tales of Thecla? Why did Gregory of Nyssa give so much credit to his sister Macrina for all his wisdom? Why is Nina called an Apostle alongside Patrick? For the early church, anyone who preached the Gospel in new lands. Nina was such an Apostle for Armenia (just as Patrick was for Ireland). We don’t need to rip out our hair about whether “Julia” that Paul mentioned was an Apostle. Just because it’s Scripture doesn’t mean that’s the only thing we should learn from. The Bible doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The existence of “female Apostles” is all there in early church history as well. The only thing stopping evangelicals is their irrational suspicion of everything nonbiblical. I know because I’ve exposed myself to their paranoia for too long myself. 😉 But I believe leaning a little on tradition is the way past madness, at least on this matter.
Oh, and one other thing. The saddest irony of all of this is that people are actually promoting the Fallen State of humanity. Not God’s new Creation in Christ. Male dominance reflects the First Adam. Not the Second. It’s unbecoming of followers of Christ to still relish in the ways of the World.
I’ll never wrap my head around this one. It is the way of Death. Not Life.
Wild Honey,
Also I would say that ‘loving ones husband’ and ‘loving one’s wife’ or romantic love and loving in general are not really all that different and don’t really need a ‘special concerns’ line.
They are the ones trying to make all of this gendered.
Sadly, you may be right HUG about the survivors of New Calvinism when the movement eventually ends. This is a consequence of deception in the church … the once-deceived never trust anything “religious” again. I can only hope and pray that some will find their way to Truth.
Once again goes back to some strange belief that women are supposed to want different things from men. Some of that is cultural, because Western Christians often attribute certain “needs” to genders which are treated very differently in other cultures. I believe the oft suggested ideal of 1950’s TV marriages is exactly that and has nothing to do with Christianity.
The rest stems from the belief that women are supposed to want their husbands over all else, instead of being complex humans like men.
Indeed, and this is one of the big problems with Baptists and congregationalists who take a complementary position.
Its only the most extreme complementarians that want to “silence” women. The core issue is whether women should be ordained to the office of elder. Its notable that the same tradition that called Mary Magdalene “Apostle to the Apostles” don’t actually put her in the same class as the other Apostles. If they did, there would be female priests. There aren’t, and there weren’t in the early church either. Female deacons existed, but the whole theology of the priesthood (which I reject, BTW), that developed in East and West does not allow for female priests.
Sure. But it’s still a matter of special concern to women. I’m not arguing that all conceptions of traditional roles are correct.
Some other matters of special concern to women:
1. Proper mothering (Paul has something to say about that in Titus)
2. Helping single women finding a good husband.
3. Counseling lifelong single women who are mourning never finding a husband (and yes, I recognize that not all lifelong single women fall into this category).
4. Counseling women after a miscarriage.
5. Navigating relational problems between women in a congregation that might rise to the level of discipline.
6. Navigating relational problems between women and men in a congregation that might rise to the level of discipline (this, of course, overlaps with special concerns for men).
7. Assisting a woman who has been abused by her husband or other males.
I agree and I think the only place this is really legitimate is when, because of gendered socialization and peer pressure, one sex gets less of something than the other. I also think that if that is true, then the whole ‘men need respect/women need love’ thing would be flipped. Maybe women need respect *more* because so many men show disrespect to us?
Sometimes we as individuals need the things we don’t get. Which is why you should actually get to know your partner instead of seeking generalized advice based on stereotypes.
Also this. So many bad assumptions could be fixed if they just recognized that women and men are more alike than different.
So, generally speaking, men and women DON’T want different things from each other in marriage? As a rule, women are just fine if their husbands, for example, aren’t all that interested in having deep conversations when they come home? Men do tend to be far less verbal than women, in general.
There is no commonality whatsoever in what men want from marriage that differs from what women want from marriage? From love?
Is there overlap? Of course. But there are distinctions. There’s a reason why certain stereotypes exist, even if they’re exaggerated. There’s a reasons why comedians’ jokes about husbands and wives are funny.
For the most part, yes. I’m WCF Reformed. Reformed has a definition—you adhere to one of the Reformed Creeds. WCF. 3 Forms of Unity. Most Reformed today, I think, would even accept the 1689 London Baptist confession. Most of the New Calvinists we hear about so much (T4G, TCG) about aren’t any of those. (There are some Presbyterians in those groups, but they aren’t driving the bus. It’s the Baptists and the Nondenominational types.) Piper’s church doesn’t follow the London Baptist Confession, for instance. And he’s a continuationst, which is also contrary to the Reformed tradition. He’s a Calvinist in his soteriology, but he’s not Reformed. That characterizes a bunch of people besides Piper.
Lutheranism has a definition as well, right? I mean, if someone insists that he’s Lutheran and rejects the Book of Concord, why should I take him seriously as a Lutheran?
Do the Reformed have a problem in this country of making appropriate distinctions? Yes they do. It stems from the participation of some Presbyterians in the Great Awakenings. There also seems to be a strong desire on the part of some Presbyterians in this country to be as well known and as popular as some of the Baptists have been. You don’t really see the same desire on the part of Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists. And I respect all of those traditions for that.
A lot of the conservative Reformed in this country are more interested in being “culturally relevant” than confessionally Reformed. The PCA is filled with such people.
Katharine Bushnell deals with this at length in her ground work God’s Word to Women.
Should be: ‘ground breaking work’
Which they (complementarian evangelicals) refuse to recognize, because in their view, said roles and stereotypes MUST APPLY TO ALL ACROSS THE BOARD, no exceptions, and based solely on plumbing received at birth.
Robert, to be sure, as you point out, it’s worth trying to understand the history of the church’s position on women officeholders as best we can. What to conclude from church history on the topic is murky though, at least to me. That males have historically dominated leadership positions in the church is indisputable (although with some fascinating outliers of some amazing women!). So, yeah, it’s possible to conclude that the church historically was “right” in doing that. Yet, the Text makes clear that it’s possible for God’s people to get stuff ‘wrong’ for a really long time, too. Yikes, how did the Jews manage to forget to celebrate Passover for so long?! (2 Kings 23:22,23). That a church practice may have lasted a long time doesn’t of itself make it ‘right’.
OR, it’s possible to conclude that historical male-predominance was due to prevailing ungodly socio-cultural norms. Or, maybe due to the fact that for most of human history civilizations were in subsistence survival mode, and if you didn’t kill something or grow something to eat, you’d starve. Hence, given men’s generally superior physical strengths to kill/grow stuff combined with women (in a world w/o birth control) spending a fair bit of their young adult life pregnant, there was a practical aspect to men and women having different stereotypical ‘roles’ (hate that term), of necessity. Then, layer on the general lack of educational opportunities afforded to women, and it’s not hard to figure out why ancient history didn’t have lots of women teachers.
So, PTL that modernity has changed many of those paradigms.
Then, wrt to Textual exegesis, I’d challenge any open-minded person to see if the go-to Texts for the complementarian position can really sustain the heavy weight they put on them. Fwiw, several years ago, I did my own personal deep-dive into the theology of gender and all the various (disputed) go-to Texts (I’ve read more than my share of phd theses on any number of the cultural/linguistic issues inherent in them), and came out the other end a convinced egalitarian.
This is actually a myth Robert.
See my comments above to ishy, but generally no. Individuals need different things, based on their background and history and possibly socialization, but we are ultimately all people and have similar needs in that regard.
Are they really though? Many of those jokes are just tiresome.
Oh, I don’t mean to say otherwise. I understand that, and it’s why I mentioned the role of males with the sacraments reflecting Christ our High Priest (something that egalitarians themselves have to come to make peace with as well). But an Apostle, while being a position of importance over all others, never meant a giver of sacraments or leading congregations. It’s a missionary. A specific kind dispatched to new lands and/or tongues and peoples. As for deacons, it’s practical at the very least. Especially in baptisms, just to protect the modesty of both of minister and the converts in the early days of the church. Water could make clothing too transparent, and it was better for women to conduct the baptisms for female converts. And that can carry over to many other types of service as well.
Wade Burleson,
Thanks, Wade. Thank you for opening your church to E Church. It has been a blessing to many.
One other historical snippet. The Montanists (wrongfully called heretical. They were just charismatics..which is funnily approved by the RC church) also had female leaders who were prophesying alongside Montanus. This is the 2nd century. But out of all criticisms laid against them, the females (Prisca and Maxmilla) were not one of them. That was irrelevant and should tell you what the early church in general focused on. What made people uncomfortable is the same thing that makes people uncomfortable about charismatics to this day: That they claimed the Spirit still speaks and holds more authority than ecclesiastical authorities. They bypassed hierarchy, much like charismatics do now. Secondly, they made some Christians uncomfortable for being so bold in public, which brought the attention of Roman persecution down even more swiftly. This happened during the fierce persecutions under the famed Marcus Aurelius. The Montanists simply didn’t care, and rightly accepted persecution. Those who wanted less attention thought they gave the Church a bad name. That was the real controversy. Not that there were females claiming the gift of prophecy.
I forgot to add. St. Perpetua (martyr of the early 3rd century and one of FIRST female writers of the Church) is still declared a saint.. when signs point that she was possibly a Montanist herself. She seems to be only one left unscathed by the attack. I guess her story is too glorious and undeniably full of faith that even the Orthodox can’t help but still hold her up.
All Complementarians wish to silence or control or contain women in some way. It is simply a matter of degree.
I did the same. Feel like a fool for taking such a simplistic view on the subject for so many years. Ah, well, live and learn, right?
I probably wouldn’t even be alive, let alone saved by Christ, if not for a woman. It was an old Catholic nun who first planted the seed of the Gospel in me. Where would I be without her? And for that matter, where would any child be without a loving mom “teaching” them about God? There are many unfortunate souls out there just like this – and they are not better off for it.
This is the natural conclusion of this “women must be silent in general” talk. Absolute folly that will send people to hell. And God will hold anyone who had a part in it to be responsible.
The problem with stereotypes is that many, many individuals do not fit them. There is no evidence that men tend to be introverts more often than women, for instance. And how many of these cliches are based on innate differences and how many are the result of human beings being forced to live out certain roles which may not fit them?
Does the outgoing husband whose wife is private and quiet have more in common with reticent men because he is a man? Or with outgoing women whose spouses are not very responsive? Is it the gender that matters or the dynamics of the situation?
We all, men and women, need to be loved, to be respected, to be accepted as we are, and to have opportunity and free agency in order to be healthy and fulfilled.
And when you come down to it, what difference do these kind of temperament qualities make? Do you start separating men based on these same temperament styles and deciding some have a right to a voice and influence whereas others do not? Because that would be the same as basing different roles on seeing the kind of differences you noted between men and women.
The bottom line is that women are human beings, just as fully as men are. We deserve the freedom to follow our own callings without being judged by a stereotypical list of qualities which may or may not fit us and which, really, have no bearing on anything, anyway. Our right to free agency should never be questioned or limited, whether our path is home and family or business or church work.
Maybe this wasn’t your point. I just think there is a huge difference between using cliches for comedy and using them for theology and doctrine.
What a sad mission to have in one’s life … to subordinate others by race, class or gender. Doesn’t sound like a God-thing to me.
It is sad, even for the oppressor. Each one of those is driven by fear.
Jesus can set both the oppressed and the oppressor free! In Christ, we are to be and treat others differently.
“There is [now no distinction in regard to salvation] neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you [who believe] are all one in Christ Jesus [no one can claim a spiritual superiority].” (Galatians 3:28 AMP)
If we are not behaving that way in the Body of Christ, then we need to question whether we are truly a member of it.
Amen. Thanks for that. I was getting a bleak myself by my own thoughts. 🙂
Like the Henny Youngman classic “Take my wife — PLEASE!”?
My stepbrother and his wife (both pharmacists) are more the second dynamic than the first. He’s fairly quiet and retiring, his wife (Assyrian from Mosul/Nineveh) is far more outgoing.
I’m an introverted man. Tbh, I kind of see all extroverts the same. Fun, but you all wear me out. I don’t even take gender into account, I think. At best, an extroverted woman on a date could probably get me to dance – but even that will be a tough sale. Heh
I don’t think any egal person disputes that there are diffs between genders or ways males/females are ‘complementary’ to each other. (Yikes, if there wasn’t, Adam could have lived happily ever after all by himself.) Whether certain stereotypes are legit, or funny, are irrelevant to the intrinsic theological issue.
The question “can women be pastors?” tends to garner the most attention. And, that’s where complementarians place their very risky bet that the mega-disputed texts of 1 Cor and 1 Tim support their claim (which I think can be debunked). But, I think the better question is whether there is anything in Gen 1 & 2 that suggests that God’s original design for man/woman was for there to be an intrinsic vested authority that man got that woman did not. If my fave OT prof Dr. Walter Kaiser is correct — see http://www.walterckaiserjr.com/women.html – the better sense of the exclamation by Adam (Gen 2:23) is “FINALLY, I’ve got my EQUAL!”.
I think the real issue is that Protestants/Evangelicals perceive “pastor” in an anachronistic sense. It confuses matters and has them mistakenly applying these passages to all forms of ministry and teaching. They somehow think Paul was perceiving “Church life” as some preacher with a bible going through expository teaching or something. That, and he was dressed in a suit and look just like Pastor Billy Bob down the road.
But the early church, as the Jews before them, were liturgical, and his instructions to Timothy and Corinth were in that context. And the liturgical leadership of the congregation functions as a reflection of Christ the High Priest in heaven. This role specifically reflects Christ’s male nature. It has nothing to do with all teaching in general… let alone suppressing women across all avenues of society. If you want that, then you may as well follow Muhammad (although I don’t recommend it. It will not end well).
^Ahem. Not to say that having a liturigical model will solve the issue alone. There are plenty of liturigical churches where radicals still push for female roles there too (although it will never happen for Catholic or Orthodox. It’s mostly the mainliners). Just that making the Lord’s Supper and it’s liturgy is a start to understand why a male role is expected here. After that, you can divorce this main function of the Church from the myriad of other ministries that women are suitable – or even superior – for. But as long as this has little importance, then church offices will all be blended into one catchall term: “Pastors”. And evangelicals will be poorer for it.
As you have indicated above, many mainlines have liturgical services and accept women fully in all roles, including administering the lords supper. (Which I have actually done, ftr.) Many don’t consider ‘female roles’ a problem that needs solving. Or maybe they solved it. YMMV.
They are a problem. And it’s torn those churches asunder themselves. It’s only gotten worse for them in a matter of a few decades, where some even now have transexual bishops. There’s no end in sight, once you make the leap to break the first rule.
Believe me, I’m all for women having roles in the Church, and don’t see myself as a Complementarian. I’m just not interested in people trying to complete reinvent the wheel.
Um, I may be misunderstanding your point, but I think I’d strongly disagree. I think the NT doctrine of the “priesthood of ALL believers” – male and female – is biblically sound. Be careful about inferring too much about Jesus’ gender in that regard.
My response to that is to encourage people to see that, yes indeed, the new covenant inaugurated in Christ changed things! Your inference that NT pastors/elders are some kind of prescribed liturgical continuation of OT male priestly function is a reach.
The priesthood of all believers has nothing to do with Liturgy. It’s about salvation and prayer and forgiveness, meeting one to one with God. I’m certainly not denying that. I’m not a Catholic, although I do think there is much to learn from them.
In some senses, each individual Christian represents the body of Christ. But collectively, we have our parts to play.
If it’s a reach, it’s been one that the Church has deluded itself with for 2000 years. I’m not so arrogant to believe that. Christ told us that the Spirit would guide us into all truth. This promise of his was a massive failure if such a “lie” was taught almost immediately. Apparently he couldn’t guide his own Church to even get it’s liturgy and offices right, almost immediately. That everything magically went to the trash by the end of the First Century.
And this is exactly what Protestants are told to believe. That so much was lost and lied about in the times between the New Testament and Luther.
There is much of value that Protestants do teach, mind you. But this isn’t one of them. I’d rather take what is good, and not buy into all of it wholesale. If for anything, it’s just mentally healthy. To think of Christ’s work in the Church to be so useless for over a thousand years and rely on paranoid conspiracies to boost the theory up (stuff like “Constantine invented and corrupted it all!”).
Ken F (aka Tweed),
Thank you for the link. It will help me understand his position better.
Ken P.,
The other interesting aspect of this line of thinking is if the church went off the rails so quickly, then how can we trust the NT that they canonized? Should we trust a NT that was handed down by apostates? But if we say that we can indeed trust the written tradition they handed down, by what rational can we reject the other traditions? It’s a thorny issue.
Based on my run-in with SBC New Calvinism a few years ago, I considered becoming Eastern Orthodox. I did not close the deal for a number of reasons, but I had to face the issue that the early church was liturgical, sacramental, and priestly from the very beginning. I was disappointed to learn that if there was a different version of Christianity it apparently did not make it into the history books. I suspect this is the reason that most Protestants don’t spend much time diving into early church history – it looks too Catholic.
I asked about the prohibition on women priests in EO, and the answer is similar to what you wrote above. It’s purely tradition because the twelve were all men. They don’t attempt to explain why it is this way. On the bright side, they don’t appear to limit women in any other way, and they don’t attempt to make rules about gender roles.
Ken P.,
I don’t know why my last comment included you. I must have made a mistake.
Saraph,
Unfortunately the Calvinists, with a little assistance from their ESV translation, interpret male dominance as God’s intention, rather than his foretelling of the sin and oppression that was sure to come.
I used to rather like the ESV until that happened. I refuse to buy one until they fix it.
There’s much I admire about the EO as well, but they have other cultural traditions that impede their otherwise admirable canonical traditions. Some would admit to this too, and from what I know, they struggle and debate among themselves what will be the identity of Western churches. What I mean is mostly the little day to day things that have little to do with the historical/early church, but are reflections of piety among current Orthodox from the old world. Things that many simply learned through “cultural osmosis”. Like the rigorous attention to feast dates and fasting times, use of incense and candles during prayer, prayer corners facing East, crossing yourself from the right, etc..
So it’s not the main doctrines I question. It’s the day to day piety that I find stifling. I believe with my whole heart that God requires us to be more informal in our day to day lives. To worship in Spirit and truth, as Jesus said. Collectively, it’s right to have order so we all have some common ground, but when the scripture says “pray without ceasing” for our private life, it means to simply keep our mind on conversation and awareness of God. You can’t do that without some freedom of movement.
So anyways, I don’t know where to go. It would be nice to find a liturgically minded church that isn’t exactly Orthodox, but that hasn’t been taken over by radical progressives either.
Lea,
Agreed
Thank you, I appreciate your response. However, just about everything in your list has overlap with situations men are in, as well. Navigating singlehood in a culture that often overly emphasizes marriage, parenting well, relational problems in a congregation, sexual abuse (statistics on boys who are abused are not too far behind that of girls), domestic abuse (especially when including emotional abuse)…
While I appreciate the intent of respecting insight particular women may bring to a situation, these should be of special concern to EVERYONE, not just one gender.
Not really.
Agreed. They aren’t really specific to women. Struggles with grief, interpersonal challenges, relationships, losing a child? These can and do apply to all people in different ways.
The baddest of the bad in the New Calvinist movement carry both the ESV Study Bible and the MacArthur Study Bible. Whew! They can squeeze the spiritual life out of you between those!
Yes, really. All Mainline churches have dwindled. Some barely breaking a million members (and still dropping). These denominations once ruled the roost, and now they’re barely a footnote. And all of their efforts mean little in the wider scope of Christianity as well. The National Council of Churches almost went bankrupt awhile back. And nobody cares anyways, except weirdos like me who pay attention. 😉
Church going in general has declined. That doesn’t mean women being involved is a disaster.
But this just gets into whatever sells is the best. Does that mean you’re a joel olsteen fan? I’m guessing not.
Indeed not. Heh. But he doesn’t sell the best anyhow. It’s still the Catholics at the Billion mark, and EO in the hundreds of millions. Protestants as a whole could be close, but counting them “as a whole” doesn’t apply unfortunately. If there’s any unifying element among Protestants however, it’s definitely the Evangelicals. And they’re still growing, especially in Latin America. And their numbers are fairly stable in Western countries too. They have largely families than others and don’t abort their offspring or partake in pointless gay unions. Even if I were to simply speak in Darwinian/Atheistic terms, this is a winning strategy.
Dude. Really? This is gross.
And far from my standard for ‘winning’.
Why is that gross? I’m just saying they’re growing even through a mere academic/secular and atheistic lens, if I were to do that (which I don’t prefer, mind you). They’re growing both on biological and ideological fronts, if you will. I’d prefer to only talk about the ideological front (especially their growth in Latin America as I said.. and just Global South in general), but that isn’t the sum of reality. Biology matters.
As someone who is a complementation myself, and has been influenced heavily by Piper, I find this this focus on only allowing women to advice on areas of special concern misguided. I think wise leaders are going to be advised by as many perspectives as possible in all things, from setting the budget, to coming up with strategies for effective evangelism, to deciding how and what to preach from the pulpit.
If one concedes that many woman have deep pain associated with miscarriage and abuse, then I think it is fair to say that a preacher needs women’s advice on how to preach, especially on how to move from exegesis to application. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard preachers insensitively spouting well intentioned platitudes from the pulpit about how the most significant thing a woman can do is have children while being completely insensitive to the pain of those who want children but can’t have them (or the many other legitimate and biblically supported reasons couples choose not to have children or singles choose to remain single). I have heard sermons on “biblical” submission that leave a wide door open for abusers and leave wives feeling like the only thing they can do is silently endure what is being done to them. If elders don’t listen to perspectives from women on these things, not only does it show a lack of humility (which I find disqualifying), but it also allows them to became enablers of spiritual abuse and neglect.
Frequently the people in the congregation who are most effective at communicating the love of the Gospel are women, and they should be advising, modeling and even leading the church in her efforts to fulfill the great commission. Frequently those who most realize the power of words and how they touch the human heart are women, and they should certainly be involved in advising those with oversight over teaching so that the whole communication of the church can be more effective.
When I was a pastor, I was more effective because I listened to the counsel of my wife in all things, and especially in my preaching. I also tried to highly value all of the contributions of the women in the church, especially their intellect and rich biblical insight into godly living.
Well said, “Wild Honey.”
Yes, they almost had to shut down in 2001:
https://www.upi.com/Archives/2000/11/20/National-Council-of-Churches-in-Crisis/2366974696400/
“NEW YORK, NOV. 20[, 2000] — The National Council of Churches (NCC), which represents 36 Protestant and Orthodox denominations, is fighting for its survival. Its finances are in such shambles that insiders told United Press International on Monday they wondered if the NCC could survive in its present state for more than six months.”
But NCC survives, due in large part to a huge influx of $$$ from ESV publisher Crossway!
Check any ESV Bible, and you’ll still see this in the front matter:
“ESV is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA”
At the same time the National Council of Churches was in a financial bind, Crossway was swimming in cash from publishing Frank Peretti’s fictional ‘spiritual warfare’ bestsellers and wanted to get into Bible publishing (Complementarians were concerned that they were losing influence over the NIV).
They were able to produce the ESV quickly, by purchasing from the National Council of Churches rights to just adapt the RSV (put an Evangelical spin on it). With the NCC having pressing debts, Crossway immediately transferred a large lump sum payment into NCC’s coffers:
https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-90989211/new-funds-boost-ncc-news
The Christian Century August 14, 2002
“New Funds Boost NCC”
“Financially strapped…NCC…through…a $625,000 advance royalty check from a conservative Bible publisher…has balanced its books”
“The $625,000 check from Crossway Books received this summer carried with it a bit of irony…[NCC] sold special rights to its Revised Standard Version Bible to Crossway. That publisher edited “a derivative” version for a theologically conservative market–the English Standard Version.”
“Rather than stringing out royalty checks over the term of the ten-year contract, Crossway negotiated a large advance payment. ‘It’s a Win-win situation for us both,’ said John Briscoe, NCC director of development.”
Robert,
Are you saying that Reformed churches should get into marriage arranging business? Maybe like a Yenta?
Thank you for making this point.
People should never be alone in their sorrow based on anything, and certainly not on the basis of gender.
That’s an incredible irony, isn’t it? Mainline ecumenism rescued from a group not known for either.
I have a soft spot for the RSV for having been the first Bible translation I read (Matthew) and Christ saved me with. But I wonder why Crossway didn’t just do their own translation.
Oh, and for the record, I’ve moved on to the NIV (2011) myself. Or rather, I switch back and forth between KJV and NIV. But I love the NIV now, including the newest iteration.
Wade Burleson,
Serious question, trying to understand where you’re coming from biblically. Being against same sex marriage, but being okay with civil unions, there seems to be a disconnect with that view. I understand Jesus’ command to love one another (John 15:12 KJV). We can love one another without agreeing with eaçh other.
I can’t speak for him, but I’m of the same mind. Marriage is a sacrament, done before God and by a minister. If governments want to make their own laws on “civil unions”, that’s not my business. I don’t take their laws on this subject any more seriously than the millions of other laws they make. They can go on and pretend that what they do means “marriage”, but it doesn’t. I can laugh about it and move on.
Same for me. I attended nearly a dozen Divine Liturgies to try to experience it. I found most of the liturgy deep and meaningful. But the emphasis on details such as fasting seem way overblown. In one of the services, a man next to me told me he could not go up to receive the Eucharist because he had forgotten the preparatory prayer. I have a hard time believing that this is what Jesus intended.
With respect to the requirement for strict fasting starting on midnight before the service, I asked the priest if Paul got it wrong when he said in 1 Cor 11 that people should not come hungry to the Lord’s Supper. That question ended our discussions and my participation in Divine Liturgy.
That best encapsulates the issues more than I could articulate. And it’s sad that the conversation went nowhere after questioning him with scripture. This also encapsulates what I mean by the difference between cultural and canonical tradition. Contrary to both Catholic and Evangelical opinion and current day EO, the root of Orthodoxy does in fact hold scripture in great importance and wouldn’t be silent when questioned about it.
“We ought not, as soon as we leave church, to plunge into business unsuited to church, but as soon as we get home, we should take the Scriptures into our hands, and call our wife and children to join us in putting together what we have heard in church.” – Chrysostom
“Just as those who are deprived of light cannot walk straight, so also those who do not behold the ray of the Holy Scriptures must necessarily sin, since they walk in the deepest darkness.” – Chrysostom again
“I exhort and entreat you all, disregard what this man and that man thinks about these things, and inquire from the Scriptures all these things.” – Chrysostom.. again
“I hear no one boast, that he hath a knowledge of the Scriptures, but that he owneth a Bible written in golden characters. And tell me then, what profiteth this? The Holy Scriptures were not given to us that we should enclose them in books, but that we should engrave them upon our hearts.” -Chrysostom (lol)
Lets go for a bonus round
“Please listen to me – you are not paying attention. I am talking to you about the Holy Scriptures, and you are looking at the lamps and the people lighting them. It is very frivolous to be more interested in what the lamplighters are doing… After all, I am lighting a lamp too – the lamp of God’s Word.”
dee,
Ha, Ha, Ha!
Thank you, hon. You, too.
Not sure where to insert this, but this post seems the most appropriate. That whole Eternal Subordination of the Son thingy did not turn out so well as a rationale for subordinating women and enforcing gender roles, so now there is this:
https://reformedperspective.ca/chairchallenge-highlights-male-female-divide/
So this experiment proves roles?
This is true. If you ask an EO priest if they take the Bible seriously you will get an answer along the lines of, “Are you kidding? If it wasn’t for us you would have a Bible.” I have read quite a lot of their theology and articles and found that they heavily rely on the Bible. Protestants who believe the EO don’t take the Bible seriously are badly misinformed. In fact, one will hear much more Bible reading in an EO service than in nearly any Protestant service.
As for all their rules, I suspect it is an attempt to not get too close to the edge, in the same way the Jewish tradition went way beyond the law in the OT. This is probably just human nature that we all do to some extent. It appears to have started in the garden where “do not eat” became do not touch.”
True enough. I should add that for all of these little traditions that get in the way, they’re obviously doing something right in general. Just for being so unified for so long. Unless you want to count the Great Schism (but I think the bishop Rome is the one out of order there). I wish we all could be like that.
One of my problems is I can often see (and agree with) multiple sides of different issues. In the case of EO, they have very compelling arguments and evidence for most everything they do and believe. But in the middle of that are some things that make no sense at all. Being someone who has always felt pressured to get it right, I did my best to try to find out if they are right. That experience left me believing that getting it right is probably not possible, and that it is probably not all that important.
I also learned that EO is a pretty big tent with lots of room for unity around The Creed while also disagreeing on lots of lesser issues. And like every other human institution, there are power struggles, politics, control issues, etc. I’m not sure yet what to do with all I learned along the way. I remain grateful for the many very good EO resources they have made available because they give us Protestants another way to see things.
I’d like to be in a Anglican type of Church where I can celebrate some of this Apostolic tradition, but there aren’t any close to me. There’s an Episcopal church near me, but that same church now suffers from the same issues as the denomination as a whole (gay clergy). I want nothing to do with ultra-conservatives who hold on to cultural traditions that mean little, and I want nothing to do with ultra-progressives either. In my mind, I’m not even asking for much… but apparently I actually am. Apparently this is all too demanding.
That pretty much sums it up for me too. I have found people who think along these lines, but not in a church near where I live.
I used to read a conservative schismatic/Old Catholic blog writer who jokingly referred to herself as a “Catacomb Christian”. I’m not sure where she is now, but I’ve taken up the title for myself. I get the feeling many here do too, if not in name. I notice across many blogs. If only we could all unite and build something.
Maybe it’s all necessary to be strangers in a strange land at the moment. After all, the Church started this way.. from the absolute beginning. Tis the season to remember Joseph and Mary and baby Jesus, fleeing to Egypt, without a home for themselves as well.
God bless
Saraph,
I tend to agree in a broad and general sense.
I think I know where Pastor Burleson is coming from.
Tolerance and approval do not have even a loose equivalence.
[As a free thinker I’m in bad odor on both sides of the aisle]
What the progressive left is demanding, is approval; they are not satisfied with tolerance.
So much so, that they would craft laws to prevent Burleson and others from free speech in the pulpit regarding marriage.
Had my life taken a different tack and had I become a high powered lawyer, I’d take their cases (embattled pastors) pro bono and fight the Orwellian zombies fang and claw.
Only with being The One True Way, the Inerrant Inexorable Infallible Party Line.
Like religious fanatics everywhere, these type of guys are only unified when they have an Outside Enemy. Otherwise you find out very quickly that The Universe Cannot Have Two Centers — or Two One True Ways. What do predators eat after they’ve killed off all the prey?
We in the West (the RCC) can say that, too.
If it wasn’t for Romish Popery and Eastern Orthodoxy (which were united back then), these Bible-Believing Evangelicals WOULDN’T have their All-Knowing Inerrant Infallible Bible. We prevented the Shirley MacLaine types from rewriting it in their own image back when years AD were in the low three digits.
Protestant history lessons (at least for the common masses) pretty much ignore all early church fathers except for Augustine. We got to hear some basics about some early figures such as Polycarp, Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus. But it was mostly limited to a few quotes. Folks like Athansius are almost never mentioned, even less with the Capadocian Fathers. And Chrystosom gets nearly no mention even though he might have been the best preacher in history. And none of the women saints get any mention at all.
This is where your famous quote comes in: “Feature, not bug.”
Wild Honey,
I don’t think those matters are of exclusive concern to women, but the way women process and deal with them is going to be different than how men do. Men and women are different.
Lea,
If that’s true, then all feminists hate men. Maybe it would be better not to be given over to ridiculous overstatements.
Interesting. I was a committed egalitarian for some 35 years and a member of several egalitarian churches until I did more study, including texts far beyond the 2 or 3 disputed texts such as 2 Timothy and 1 Corinthians and concluded that the egalitarian position is wrong. The most convincing argument for me is that there is not one bonafide female Apostle or elder anywhere in the New Testament. Jesus and Paul and the others weren’t afraid to upset cultural norms. Very easily we could have a commissioned female Apostle or elder/pastor if they wanted one. There are dozens of male ones. Not one female. It requires you to “read between the lines” and do heavy inferences based on disputed cases such as Junia. Paul very easily could have given qualifications for female elders (where’s the wife of one husband qualification?) if it were a thing he envisioned.
Honestly, I don’t think the egalitarian position would exist apart from modern feminism and the sexual revolution. We are so accustomed to reading Scripture as post-Enlightenment Westerners that we don’t even see how much we’ve imbibed. There’s a reason why there is almost no such thing as egalitarianism prior to the twentieth century apart from a few odd historical cases, most of which are quite unorthodox. That doesn’t mean it is necessarily wrong, but it means egalitarians bear a heavier burden in proving their position than the complementarians.